Last month in a
different context I mentioned the publication Jacobin. I’d seen a few
times on other subjects online but it is only recently that I learned that it
was an American Marxist publication.
I am aware, given the
nature of so much of society these days, that capitalism, democracy and so much
how America works has been under assault from the left as much as the right.
I’m well aware of the popularity of ‘socialist Democrats’ such as Bernie in the
Senate and the Squad in the House and I’ll be honest their politics have always
struck me as a fiction more than realistic. But the idea of a publication that
exists that is still devoted to pitching Marxism – well even the fact that it
only has 50,000 subscribers still makes my mind go into scary visual places.
I imagine that Jacobin
sticks closely to the anti-American, anti-imperial mythology that so many
leftists are devoted to and lives in that reality. But it’s the ‘Marxist’ label
that troubles me because even with all the problems of the issues involving the
one percent and Wall Street, I’m genuinely astonished anyone would even now
believe that communism, with or without a capital C, is a viable option. I
realize the left loves to rewrite history to make America the villain and I’m
all too aware of the horrors that our country committed in the name of fighting
the Red Menace during the Cold War. What I will never go along with is the
implications that communism was harmless or the underlying feeling by many on
the left that it would work if it was done correctly.
I don’t deny the idea
of European imperialism being responsible for the troubles of the world today.
But I’ve noticed a remarkable absence of the mentions the many Communist
infiltrations that happened in the immediate aftermath of World War II that
somehow. I’ve heard dozens of horror stories about American intervention across
the globe in the Middle East and Africa. I’ve seen almost none about the
invasion of Poland, Greece and Turkey, or the many crises we faced over Germany
and Berlin over forty years that at least once might have led to World War
III. Are there still people out there
who genuinely believe that Stalin was benevolent and that Cuba and China were
prime examples of Communism working perfectly? If there are, I don’t want to
meet them – but I have a feeling I might have in passing online.
And that often makes me
wonder about some of the writings in Jacobin. Do they all attack America and
European imperialism or do some write that the KGB was misunderstood? Do they
argue that the gulags were more humane that Guantanamo? Do they say that no one
tells you about the good things that men like Beria and Chou En-Lai did? I
really don’t want to know.
And that’s before you
get to the arts section which I hinted at in my piece on the Oscars. I saw some
of the articles this ‘critic’ had written and when I tried to figure out what
movies and TV this person might like I kept drawing a blank. The later works of
Sergei Eisenstein when he was a tool of Stalin? Do they think that the limited
series Chernobyl was a hack job on the Soviet Union? Do they see A
Spy Among Friends as a hack job of their national hero Kim Philby? I can’t
process it and maybe I shouldn’t.
These thoughts kept
coming to mind when I was watching the first episodes of Showtime’s new limited
series A Gentleman in Moscow which has received good to outstanding
reviews from most critics but which I imagine Jacobin would consider fake
news. It’s hard to argue with that judgment because it is propaganda for
aristocracy – and it makes it very clear just how cruel the early days of the
Soviet Union were.
Now I’ll acknowledge
the end of the imperial families across Europe was what the twentieth century needed
to move forward. (I have, for the record, a serious problem with The King’s
Man an action film whose impetus for the film basically is the kind
of propaganda that Jacobin could argue for. ) I’m not convinced that it was the
best thing Russia. Considering its horrid history for the next century one
wonders, like the title character, whether the old ways were the best. One could
see Jacobin berating this movie for celebrating Russian aristocracy and demeaning
the Communist Revolution. The problem is it’s very hard to see the events even
in the first two episodes and argue that anything about the Revolution from the
start was done with the best intentions.
The series centers on
the former Count Rostov who we meet in 1921. He is one of the few remaining
nobles still alive after the October Revolution that removed the Czar from
power killed off most of the ruling class and ‘redistributed their wealth’. He
has been the prisoner of a luxury hotel for the past four years and as the premiere
begins, he is brought before a tribunal expected to be executed. To his shock,
his life is spared and he is sentenced to lifetime imprisonment at the hotel.
The ostensible reason for his survival is because a poem that seemed to be in
favor of the revolution is favored by followers of Lenin. It becomes clear very
quickly that is far from the only reason he is still alive.
Rostov returns to the
hotel and is told in no uncertain terms by a man in a coat and beard who has
yet to beg given a name that he must never leave this hotel “If you do, I’ll be
waiting.” It seems certain this man is a member of the secret police that will
come to fruition under Stalin, whose name comes up a few times – and is
casually dismissed as an amateur.
Rostov continues to
live his life as best he can. He dresses in his evening wear for every meal in
the dining room, has his hair cut every day, even manages to take the fact that
his possessions have been taken from him and he is in a room with no heat. The
hotel staff is still in awe of him but the hotel manager is worried as he
believes Rostov’s presence is a threat to his well-being and knows that things
are going to get worse. This is made very clear in the first episode when one
of Rostov’s few surviving nobles, who has been made to play violin for the
party for decades, is humiliated and then shot outside the hotel, within days
of trying to make a break for freedom.
The only ally Rostov has
for certain in this hotel is Nina, who we meet a nine years old. She is the
daughter of the hotel manager and is still young enough to be in awe of the old
ways. She asks to hear tales of Rostov’s youth, learns about duels, wants to
know stories about the nobility. She also has a passkey to the hotel that enables
Rostov to move throughout it freely. Like all European hotels in fiction, there
are secret passages leading all across the building. However, because Rostov is
a gentleman, he doesn’t use them to spy on the guests but only to try and find
his own freedom.
It may tell you
everything you need to know about Rostov that he is played by Ewan McGregor. Before
he became the young Obi-Wan Kenobi, he spent his youth playing working class
and often criminal Englishmen, most famously in Trainspotting but just
as well in Shallow Grave. He has played certain erudite figures in
movies, most famously in Moulin Rouge. His transition to American movies
has mostly involved films that were beneath him for the next decade, but in the
2010s he began to readjust his career with such undervalued masterpieces as The
Ghost Writer, Beginners, and August: Osage County.
It took a while for him
to get into the world of prestige TV but when he did he broke big in the
incredible third season of Fargo. He
played brothers Emmit and Ray Stussy who had spent twenty years in a feud in
which the younger brother had convinced the older to trade their inheritance –
a stamp for a car. One became a multi-millionaire and was wealthy and affluent,
the other was a pot-bellied parole officer. It was one of the most incredible
acting performances in an anthology series full of them and it was rewarding
for McGregor professionally and personally. He won both a Golden Globe and a Critics
Choice Award for Best Actor in a Limited Series (he lost the Emmy to Riz Ahmed
for The Night Before in what was a very tough race to judge) and he met
his future wife Mary Elizabeth Winstead.
McGregor has since
spent as much time on television as he has the silver screen, winning an Emmy
for his work in the title role as Halston and recreating his role of Obi-Wan
Kenobi in the self-titled mini-series which was nominated for an Emmy last
year. Now he takes on a role which has aspects of all of the characters he has
played on television for the past decade: there are elements of both gentleman
and rogue in both aspects.
It might help matters
that his wife also has a critical role as Anna, an actress who is a member of
the party. “I’ve seen her movies,” Nina says. “They’re not very good.” Winstead and McGregor have appeared in several
other projects together since Fargo (they were both in Birds of Prey)
but this is the first time since then that they are playing lovers again.
Winstead’s career has not
been much shorter than McGregor’s. She’s been acting since she was thirteen and
had her first regular role in TV on the cult soap opera Passions at
fifteen. Most of her films were unremarkable but she began to break through
when she played John McLain’s daughter in the fourth Die Hard film. She
is beloved for her work as Ramona Flowers in Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World and
has cult favorite for 10 Cloverfield Lane. Like her husband she’s spent
much of the last decade in TV, most notably as the lead in the cult series Braindead
and she also has a key role in a recent Star Wars limited series Ahsoka.
Winstead has always been one of the most fascinating performers to watch
over the last twenty years, attractive but not sexy in the way so many other
performers are. There’s frequently a level of a lone wolf to most of the characters
she plays, someone who likes to have sex but not relationships. This is true
when she encounters the Count in the second episode and she takes on the
position of the dominant personality. The Count is a member of the gentlemanly
school, so he is taken by surprise when Anna takes the initiative in everything
– including the bedroom.
The series is
fascinating to watch not just because of the scenery and the music but because,
like the hotel Rostov is trapped in, there are secrets behind everything. Rostov
fled to Paris in 1913 but returned to Russia. We don’t yet know why or why he
is still alive. We know it has something to do with his friend Mishka, who was
a childhood friend and is now prominent in the party. But there was a conflict
over Rostov’s sister and they became estranged. All of this has something to do
with some reason Rostov seems to be punishing himself for, something that we
get a sense of in vague flashes and dreams to Rostov’s youth but still don’t
understand the full picture of.
I’m aware that A
Gentleman in Moscow is based on a best selling novel that I didn’t read and
that alterations have been made to the plot. For one thing in this version of
the series Mishka is, well, a black Russian (play on words intended). I’m also
aware that this in a sense a celebration of a way of life that so many people,
including the ones who read Jacobin regularly, would dismiss as degrading
communism. They’re the ones, ironically,
who would need to see this series the most because it is them who we see in the
early episodes arguing that the revolution will bring about the freedom and
equality that these American Marxists believe is necessary. For them, much of
what is going on in A Gentleman in Moscow is the lesson of what happens
when ideals are run over by people who can manipulate them. We know all too
well that things are going to get worse, not just for Rostov but everyone in
this series. In a teaser for the next episode, Stalin is clearly in power and
Rostov asks Mishka if this is the brave new world he hoped for. Mishka tries to
wave him off: “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” “No” Rostov reminds him, “it was
burnt in one.” Rostov is speaking not just for his way of life but for
everything Russia would undergo for the next century. Those so-called Marxists
would do well to remember that before they talk of burning it all down.
My score: 4.25 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment